Christians accept the results of science in a vast number of areas. That is, except for just a few that contradict their holy ancient superstitious book. This video below is a nice summary of the results of science. How does religion stack up with science? Let's see, that book says there was a universal flood (so say many Christians). Science shows that this did not happen. What to do, what to do? How do I decide? Let's see, science says virgins don't have babies. Science shows this could not happen. What to do, what to do? How do I decide? That's easy for me. You?

15
comments:

Well, to be fair, it is hard to trust something when you have no concept of how it even works! Most don't even have the capacity to apply the sort of rigor science demands without first imposing their pre-drawn conclusions on the framework, and in one fell swoop invalidationg the entire process.

Interesting video. It is very true, I have had alot of arguments with believers I used to associate with on face book and they very often said they were all for science but they also believed science had alot of holes in it.Obviously those holes are in whatever contradicts the bible or at least whatever scriptures they cant change so as to conform to scientific evidence.

Religion has a lead on science in the field of artistic achievement, but religion did have a several millennia head start.

What I don't get is how religious people can justify using things that atheists have created, like all Edison's gadgets. How can you trust x-rays if you don't accept carbon dating? Radiation, radioactive decay, it's all the same thing, really.

John said...."Let's see, that book says there was a universal flood (so say many Christians). Science shows that this did not happen. What to do, what to do? How do I decide? Let's see, science says virgins don't have babies. Science shows this could not happen. What to do, what to do? How do I decide? That's easy for me. You?"

Yeah.And while considdering these things faithful folks might like to also considder that we still often see good evidence to this very day, of proof that many folks of faith are still often being found out to be fully prepared to promote complete fraud.Folks like the Benny Hinns and suggested miracles etc

What reason do we have to suggest maybe faithful folks might have actually become more fraudulent over the years?

None.

If anything maybe it could even be said its quite possible science and modern techniques and time etc,have infact held faithful folks to account for adopting a much more honest approach to matters.

Hmmm... silly video. Those Christians don't believe that "science has an agenda", but "scientists have an agenda". Science is the high ground, that atheists, Christians and pseudo-scientists try to claim.

Here is the "Answers in Genesis" website:http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/kw/study-your-science

"Answers in Genesis is filled with, and supported by, individuals who love sound science. Science based on observation helps us to understand our world and to develop new technology. We are firm believers in good science."

I think the video takes the wrong slant. Personifying "science" like it does borders on scientism, and does nothing but preach to the converted.

I can't watch the video here at work but came across this while trying to figure out how to communicate with my wife. It is a very interesting story that leads up to this point in time, but I'll cut to the chase and hope it isn't too confusing. (I walked away from faith 10/4/2009 [literally...between Sunday School and Church] but my wife remains strongly rooted.)She says she just doesn't care whether or not the dinosaurs walked with mankind and it's not for her to understand everything. She is blindly going to believe in JC no matter what answers I come up with.

No Breckmin, you are a fool. Talking about "interpretations" is nothing more than a blatant attempt to muddy the waters by people who can't handle the truth and are grabbing at straws to avoid dealing with their own cognitive dissonance.

Here are some facts:

There was a time when invoking the supernatural within science had some legitimacy, even if it wasn't very well justified. As a result, the majority of science minded people did have theological leanings.

However, even a cursory examination of the history of the people involved in science shows that they often disagreed with the religious dogmas of their time, meaning that they were well aware of the logical problems posed by religious-based "interpretations" and dogma in general.

Today, we have advanced enough within both the philosophy of science and the methods of science to a degree that allows us definitively rule out your "alternative interpretations." There are no new theologically based "interpretations" of scientific evidence that are being presented today by the religious that have not already been thoroughly examined by the scientific community and found to be lacking in quality and quantity.

The issue is not one of evidence or interpretation, it is of the social and psychological need for certain religious traditions to make their out of date theologies fit within a modern world.

Some of these traditions have been more successful at adapting than others, and those that can't or won't adapt, predictably and consistently attack what they can't deal with by outright rejection or by the silly approach that you are trying.

And Don, you're an idiot. I honestly don't mean to offend you, but quoting AIG as an authority completely discredits anything that you might have to say on the subject of science. Learn this and learn this well: There is no such thing as scientism. It is a word made up by people who don't like what science is telling them, and rather than becoming truly informed on the scientific issues, they accuse "science" of having some agenda. It's nothing more than a lame attempt to shoot the messenger and avoid dealing with the problems inherent in the beliefs you hold. It's much easier to blame someone else for your inability to reject or reconcile your beliefs that conflict with the findings of science.

This was the impression I got when I was a "Religious Son of Hell"I was brainwashed by "Young Earthers" early in my Christian walk that scientists were under a conspiracy and that they couldn't be trusted. Now I'm finding out the opposite to be true. The universal flood is nonsense. The Big Bang is now beyond reasonable doubt showing the universe to be arround 13.7 billion years old.

Thanks John for posting the video. I hope you don't mind my adding to this thread something I've posted on a different thread on Debunking Christianity. But it seems absolutely pertinent to the video that merits its repetition here.

It is what David Eller reminds us so clearly:

...."religions do not and cannot progress that way that, say, science can progress. When science progresses, it abandons old and false ideas. Once we discovered oxygen and the principles of combustion, we stopped thinking that there was a substance called phlogiston. Once we discovered that the earth was round, we stopped thinking that it is flat. Science and reason are SUBSTITUTIVE and ELIMINATIVE: new ideas replace old ideas. Religion is ADDITIVE and/or SCHISMATIC: news ideas proliferate alongside old ideas. For instance, the development of Protestantism did not put an end to Catholicism, and the development of Christianity did not put an end to Judaism. With science, we get better. With religion, we get more."